Which starting WR would you bench (or release) so that the new guy could start?

There has been a lot of talk this year about how WR should be an offseason priority for the Seahawks. I don't actually share that opinion, but regardless, it's a possiblity that Seattle might go out and invest in a starting WR this offseason, either in free agency or with a high draft pick. If that happens, one of Rice, Tate, or Baldwin would lose their starting job. Tate and Baldwin are on cheap, team controlled contracts. Rice is owed $7 million next season. Personally, I would not feel great about investing big for a starting WR because I don't want to bench any of those three guys (unless it was for Wes Welker).

But if it did happen, who would you bench to start him? Personally, I'd bench Baldwin- and only because I think he's our 3rd best WR right now.

For the purposes of this poll, I'm leaving off the option for drafting/signing a backup WR and keeping our current trio- that's because I'm more curious about which player you'd feel most comfortable with upgrading on.

I voted Baldwin only because his injuries worry me. Golden is on the upswing and I'm willing to pay Sidney Rice his 7 million for the production that he has. Rice's connection with Russell will only get better and now that Sidney has put some meat on those bones, I think his injuries will be infrequent.

Rice has had 1.5 injury free seasons out of 6. just don't trust him to Stay healthy. I say you turn Tate into a slot guy and draft a serious number one guy, move Rice over to the number 2. Make Baldwin a situational Wr. (that gets used a lot.) We still don't have that #1 guy yet. We need that wr one the roster that is drafted to Complement RW3'S skillset, imo

I would also move Baldwin down the depth chart.I am also on board with WR being not the huge need some people think.I dont like taking WRs in round one.A day 2 type pick in rounds 2 through 4 would be fine for me.

Why does he have to replace anyone? If we get a kid that's awesome, traditionally speaking he won't have =an impact until year 3 anyway. Why wouldn't he sit behind one of the options listed above, instead of getting toasted as a rook?

Ideally we'd be drafting a number 1, so that would just move everyone 1 down the depth chart, NWR and Rice on the outsides, Tate playing slot or outside on WR heavy sets, Baldwin also playing slot - ideally rotating all of them to keep them fresh (and less prone to injury!)

That's the beauty of competition, the best players will play! I'd think Baldwin would get pushed aside a bit, seeing as this offense seems to favor bigger receivers on the outside. But I think if Tate can keep playing even at a fraction of what he played yesterday, He could easily change their minds about having a bigger receiver on the outside, we'll see though.

We have two real offensive needs: a really good TE, and and elusive player with silly speed at any of the 3 skill positions. If that is a WR, then so be it, we will run more 3 WR sets. We have silly speed with Turbin already, but with Lynch, Turbo is just not going to be on the field that much. Unless Bevell starts designing some two RB sets, which would be a good idea.

If we draft a wide receiver he won't be replacing anyone, he will be adding depth to the pool. I think we have less of a need at WR and more of a need for a good second TE to go with Miller. I'd rather try and draft a solid TE if one's available and pick up a WR in the later rounds.

debevemos wrote:If we draft a wide receiver he won't be replacing anyone, he will be adding depth to the pool. I think we have less of a need at WR and more of a need for a good second TE to go with Miller. I'd rather try and draft a solid TE if one's available and pick up a WR in the later rounds.

Technically you are replacing someone...just not the three listed. I believe when he said "replace" the op was saying in the starting lineup....if you list the three in the poll at WR#1, #2, #3...and not literally kick the guy off the team.

I fully understand the cost issue, but I just don't see this team going deep into the playoffs with its current receiving stable. We need an upgrade. It doesn't have to be in the first-round, and of course Pete and John will do all the scouting necessary to ensure that it DOESN'T come from the first-round. But the status quo isn't an option.

I'm more concerned with tight end. I'd lose Miller and Moore and keep McCoy. I might use a first round pick to get a potential superstar at that position. I'm actually pretty comfortable at WR. I'd pick a late round guy, somebody tall and let them compete. Let's see what Baldwin does for the rest of the season. He's now on shaky ground (kind of like BMW a year ago) I'd say while Tate and Rice have excellent job security.

I think this poll shows that our WR corps is a lot more solid than it gets credit for. I voted Tate because he still messes up his routes, but that's really a reason to vote not to bring in a high WR pick in the first place. He'll be two, three years away from getting comfortable with the route tree anyways. I'm for bringing in a high quality WR, because we need the competition, but I don't think the guy automatically bumps any of those three off the starting rotation. I'm glad Pete has the philosophy he does about competition.

Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."

I still am not sold on Tate. Hard to say anything after the game he just had. I definitely do not question his heart and desire. I'd like to see another big receiver along side Rice and let Baldwin and Tate battle for the slot.

I think it's been echoed in here, but of the three, only Golden Tate seems to remain on the field every game during the season. Think of a #1 WR as more of an insurance policy where Baldwin and Rice are your wild cards.

If the WR is an upgrade over who we already have, then I'm good with replacing ANY of those listed. Frankly, we have GOT to stop over-valuing our own players, a trait this board is way to familiar with. thankfully, I don't believe our FO has that stance at all.

megamanflx1 wrote:Why does he have to replace anyone? If we get a kid that's awesome, traditionally speaking he won't have =an impact until year 3 anyway. Why wouldn't he sit behind one of the options listed above, instead of getting toasted as a rook?

IMO, the choice is D) Sit him till year 3.

Umm you draft a reciever with your #1 pick he better have an impact and better not sit for three years.

Rice is brittle (the kiss of death did not materialize this season, YET. knock on wood. twice).Tate is both genious and inconsistent.Baldwin is very talented, but probably not a starting caliber WR on most great NFL teams. and he is dinged.

the reality is that we still need to invest in an elite WR opposite of Rice to be in the superbowl conversation. hopefully a #1 WR in the draft, someone we can trade up to get and who would produce for years to come... someone of AJ Green or Julio Jones stature.

Tate has been playing great lately but we could still use an influx of talent to compete everywhere. None of the preseason WR threads speculated that Kearse and Martin would be on the field at the same time yesterday, but you need depth in the NFL.

Depth with high upside is the best of both worlds, and rookies are inexpensive these days. We can draft a promising WR in the mid-first round for $2 million/year. Every player we draft is going to be competing with current Seahawks for a job, and I don't understand why are posters here so protective of our receiver group in particular.

What position would you rather see taken in the first three rounds? Do you hate the Seahawks who play at that current position, or do you just want better talent everywhere with more competition?

This is sort of a situation that depends on the offensive coordinator/philosophy. Just for the sake of conversation, having a burner at split end (Mike Wallace, for example - I'm not advocating paying the price he would command) would really open up the offense, imo. It would likely shift bracket coverage to that side of the field allowing Rice more 1:1 coverage. It would also give Tate and Miller more favorable match ups on the inside against linebackers and safeties. We would also force safeties to play back a little bit, helping our OL with fewer guys in the box. With our strong run game and subsequent play action success, our offense could be really deadly and tough to game plan for. Adding a possession guy (prime Mike Williams, for example) would help move the chains and with our consistency, but it allows teams to constrict the field and makes us more one dimensional.

Though I love them both because they're Seahawks, neither TAte or Baldwin, brings anything more then 100 other WR's in the NFL bring. If we brought in a 1st round pick who was better then them i wouldnt think twice about replacing either of those guys.

I'm glad someone else brought up TE - because that's another position we could improve. I have no idea why they were so excited to get Evan Moore - not only does he not have a catch, but they rarely throw to him when he does get in. Very odd.

On the WR front, I've been more than vocal and repetitive that I think we need an upgrade - I still do. Mike Wallace would be ideal...the kind of receiver you MUST account for every single play. It's not just the plays he can make, it's the plays he opens up for others. Why do you think a guy like Antonio Brown has become such a threat for Pittsburgh? Yes, he is good - but he is taking advantage of the attention defenses have to show Wallace.

We need a Wallace, or an AJ Green/Julio Jones type. Either a barn burner (Wallace) or a big/physical receiver who can eat up defenders. Add a WR like that to Rice/Tate/Baldwin and we have something dangerous brewing. The upgrade would not come at the expense of the those guys, we would be replacing guys like Obo, Martin, Kearse, etc.

I think if Rice and Baldwin can stay healthy and Tate can find a way to play consistently at the level he played at for the last two games, we're pretty okay at WR. Just need to improve the depth. The fact that Kearse and Martin are on the active roster and TO is likely on speed dial is a sign that we have serious problems in the depth dept. Though I would be ALL FOR bringing in that Brandon Coleman kid that English is pumping the tires on, but I don't think WR is a huge glaring need right now. Coleman looks like a phenom (but likely won't even be on the board when we pick so it's moot).

I think the biggest need as far as "skill position"* players goes would be a versatile H-Back. I think they know it too considering they brought in Kellen Winslow in the off season. Having a guy like that in the mix would open things up on offense big time. Just look what Hernandez was able to do to us (and what his presence allowed Welker and Gronk to do to us). I'd love to have a guy like that out there.

I think ultimately it would come down to Baldwin losing the most snaps and then Tate next. Not so much benching one or the other and assuming the new WR would take over that spot.

I'd love to draft a receiver with great route running ability, size, and the ability to play the slot as well as he plays the outside, similarly to how Rice is doing it. Rice would start and, if good enough, the New Guy would be #2.

Tate and New Guy would probably still split snaps in 2-wr sets, and you can still get Tate on the field, as an outside receiver in 3-wr sets, with one of the other two moving inside. Mostly, keep Tate on the outside. I have no faith with him at slot.

Baldwin will get his plays in the empty backfield sets out of the slot or even in 3-wr sets when precision routes are needed, taking out either Tate or the rookie.

I'd have said Tate in a nanosecond, but then he had a really great game and I am once-again reminded of his play-making potential IF he could only learn about focus, discipline, and route running. Instead, I voted for Baldwin since he didn't even get drafted and those guys all suck.

But seriously, and I mean this, I think every one of our WRs is completely replaceable. Contracts set aside, I don't think any of them should really feel all that safe.

But to play, I said Rice. You only draft a WR high if that guy is going to be a number 1 WR, otherwise we can get a WR in the late rounds to compete for the other positions. If he isn't going to come in and compete to be the #1 guy then it's a waisted draft pick.

Edwards and Kearse are replaceable and if we draft someone later on it will be to compete for those spots.

I think we have decent WR's and need to solidy other positions before the WR position though. I still think we need to draft another person on the OL and DL before we take a WR.

Wide receiver might not be my first choice for a high draft pick. We could certainly use an upgrade at the postion, but the same could be said about tight end, defensive tackle (as Branch and Jones are both free agents next year) and to a lesser extent linebacker as Leroy Hill isn't gettting any younger and I don't think I see his replacement on the roster. Also wouldn't mind seeing an upgrade at right tackle! Its a good team, but with room for improvement. I can see wide receiver taking a back seat to some of these other needs.

We have a good #1 in Rice, if he stays healthy. He's making a push at the end of the year, and gaining chemistry with Wilson.

Tate is inconsistent. He can be a good #2, or he can totally disappear. I don't trust him to be the 2nd guy unless he gets better, but if he plays up to his potential, he'd work. Tate is very sturdy; the pounding he took yesterday would've put Baldwin out for 3 weeks, if Doug could've finished the game.

I voted Baldwin, but really, it's our 4th or 5th guy that would be gone. Edwards is done physically, Kearse doesn't seem to grab the opportunity when he gets it, and Martin is just average.

We could really use a dynamic WR, and there's room for one on the squad. I think Miller will improve as our OL improves, and as Wilson improves. We're fine there.

Add to and let them compete. I am not for bringing in a big free agent. It just seems like it is so 50/50 when you do that. If we are bringing in a Dwayne Bowe for a 4th or 5th, fine, but only because it seems it is easy to pick up extra picks in that range. However, I don't want to bring in Bowe because he is going to want a big payday.

Draft is the only way to go, imo. I'm fine with the guys we have, I just want to add to them. A guy like Marquise Lee (however you spell it) from USC is the kind of guy that we need. Somebody they have to account for athletically and double or take their chances. It will open up the field.

Scottemojo wrote:We have two real offensive needs: a really good TE, and and elusive player with silly speed at any of the 3 skill positions. If that is a WR, then so be it, we will run more 3 WR sets. We have silly speed with Turbin already, but with Lynch, Turbo is just not going to be on the field that much. Unless Bevell starts designing some two RB sets, which would be a good idea.

I knew there was a reason I get "future seahawk" vibes from Tavon Austin. You are right, this offense needs a slick speedster. My preference would still be for Wes Welker though. I don't even care that he's 32 next season. It will take him a few years still to lose that speed, and when he does he'll still be useful ala Brandon Stokely. The Patriots wouldn't let him hit UFA would they? Would they?

Scottemojo wrote:We have two real offensive needs: a really good TE, and and elusive player with silly speed at any of the 3 skill positions. If that is a WR, then so be it, we will run more 3 WR sets. We have silly speed with Turbin already, but with Lynch, Turbo is just not going to be on the field that much. Unless Bevell starts designing some two RB sets, which would be a good idea.

I knew there was a reason I get "future seahawk" vibes from Tavon Austin. You are right, this offense needs a slick speedster. My preference would still be for Wes Welker though. I don't even care that he's 32 next season. It will take him a few years still to lose that speed, and when he does he'll still be useful ala Brandon Stokely. The Patriots wouldn't let him hit UFA would they? Would they?

If they do, I hope we stay far, far away from Welker. When's the last time the Patriots released an older player while he was still playing at a high to very high level?

Give me Tavon Austin in this years draft and Colt Lyerla in next years draft. (although i'd take Seffarian Jenkins too, but I think Lyerla will be a more dynamic pro). I think Lyerla is going to be a much better blocking version of Jimmy Graham, and Seffarian Jenkins is going to be Tony Gonzales, so you cant really go wrong with either one.

Sarlacc83 wrote:If they do, I hope we stay far, far away from Welker. When's the last time the Patriots released an older player while he was still playing at a high to very high level?

Lawyer Milloy had a few good years left after New England parted ways. Richard Seymour did too, although he cost Oakland a 1st so I don't know if that counts.

Welker is 32 next May and presumably looking for a long term deal. He also looks nowhere close to declining yet. But the fear factor about his age could make things interesting. Personally, I'd throw a 5 year deal his way without blinking. Speedy players age more gracefully, and Welker is more than a fast player, he's an outstanding possession receiver too. And it's not like we have to keep him all 5 years if he starts sucking. If he produces for just two or three years like he is now, and then has two or three years of Brandon Stokely plus, he could justify $20 million guaranteed pretty easily. I like Welker because he is an upper tier WR that might become a market inefficiency. If Welker was 28 with his current track record, he'd never hit FA at all and would cost more than a 1st rounder to acquire. But as is, he might be under-rated because of his age and available for nothing more a Desean Jackson type contract.

AgentDib wrote:Depth with high upside is the best of both worlds, and rookies are inexpensive these days. We can draft a promising WR in the mid-first round for $2 million/year. Every player we draft is going to be competing with current Seahawks for a job, and I don't understand why are posters here so protective of our receiver group in particular.

Good thinking. A mid round player would actually be much cheaper than that. Salary for a 4th rounder is around 500k a season. Even mid-2nd round picks only make about $1 million per year. I think an ideal situation would be snagging someone like Tavon Austin in round 2 for a bargain contract.

Sarlacc83 wrote:I don't know, I think Woods is coasting off his 2011 season. He really hasn't been that impressive this year, IMO.

REC YDS TD AVG LONG59 656 10 11.1 41Thats his numbers so far through nine, your right its a come down, but could be just enough of one to allow him to slip to us.

Thats alright for a coasting year I suppose, also hes more likely to fall to us in the late first then say Keenan Allen who's mocked to go higher. Though Tavon Austin in the second round would be nice instead, that'd allow us to go DT or TE (dare I hope for Tyler Eifert) in the 1st.

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Mark Twain.

"Beast Mode is artist, puny Saints Defense merely his canvas!"

"When you die the only kingdom you'll see, will be two foot wide and six foot deep!"

Scottemojo wrote:We have two real offensive needs: a really good TE, and and elusive player with silly speed at any of the 3 skill positions. If that is a WR, then so be it, we will run more 3 WR sets. We have silly speed with Turbin already, but with Lynch, Turbo is just not going to be on the field that much. Unless Bevell starts designing some two RB sets, which would be a good idea.

I knew there was a reason I get "future seahawk" vibes from Tavon Austin. You are right, this offense needs a slick speedster. My preference would still be for Wes Welker though. I don't even care that he's 32 next season. It will take him a few years still to lose that speed, and when he does he'll still be useful ala Brandon Stokely. The Patriots wouldn't let him hit UFA would they? Would they?

If they do, I hope we stay far, far away from Welker. When's the last time the Patriots released an older player while he was still playing at a high to very high level?

You act as if New England releasing him suddenly MAKES him bad. He's an awesome player who makes a LOT of catches. Guy burned ET deep. Not many WR's can make that claim.

Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."

Assuming everyone were healthy, I think we'd drop Tate from the starting list. While he's a fantastic playmaker with the ball in his hands, I think Baldwin is still a better all-day every-day slot option when he's healthy. I think we might be able to get Tate's current level of production by bringing him in off the bench to run the screens and other stuff that he's really good at.

Really, though, I'm not sure anyone needs to be replaced. Tate seems to be getting better at route running, and I think he might end up being a legitimate #2 receiver by the end of the season. But I'd still like to see another WR drafted and added to our stable. Right now we have no serious competition for Tate. Edwards, Obomanu, and Martin won't likely be on the team two years from now. Kearse could maybe step up, but we'd be foolish to count on it. Realistically, we need to increase the amount of talent at the position.